Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 23 (1.22 seconds)Section 437 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Gurcharan Singh & Ors vs State (Delhi Administration) on 6 December, 1977
"Counsel for the State pressed before us that the corruption of which the appellant was guilty prima facie according to the results of the investigation) was substantial. Let us assume so. Even then refusal of bail is not an indirect process of punishing an accused person before he is convicted. This is a confusion regarding the rationale of bail. This Court has explained the real basis of bail law in Gurcharan Singh Vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 SC 179; (1978 Crl. L.J. 129).
Section 132 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Balkrishna Chhaganlal Soni vs State Of West Bengal on 22 October, 1973
In Balakrishna Chhaganlal Soni Vs. State of West Bengal the Supreme Court observed that social and economic offences stood on a graver footing in respect of punishment and that if judicial institutions were not to be cynically viewed by the community, the Courts must help the process of conviction.
Section 439 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Section 108 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Sanjay Verma vs State on 8 April, 1991
A perusal of the order in Sanjay Verma Vs. State shows that the learned Judge relied on the observations of the Supreme Court to take the view that economic offences are placed even at a higher pedestal than murder. Bail was refused by the learned Judge mainly on the ground that the petitioner therein was
alleged to have stated that earlier also he used to help his father in the latter's smuggling activities and was involved in the seizure of 120 foreign marked gold biscuits and, therefore, he was likely to indulge in offences of a similar nature if released on bail. In this context it should
be mentioned that if the Legislature wanted the Courts to treat economic offences differently from other offences in the matter of granting bail,
they could have made special provisions specifying additional limitations on granting of bail as in the case of offences under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985. In the absence of such special provisions the general principles governing the grant of bail under Sections 437
and Section 439 of Criminal Procedure Code will apply even in a case involving an economic offence. It is significant that even though additional limitations on grant of bail have not been specified in legislations like the Customs Act and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, considering the nature of the offences and in the interest of society and the State, in addition to the provisions for sentence and penalty, provisions have been made under Section 111 of the Customs Act and Section 63 of FERA for confiscation of the goods/currency/security/money/property in respect of which the offence was committed.
The State vs Captain Jagjit Singh on 14 September, 1961
The Supreme Court also opined that the general observations contained in the judgment in The State Vs. Captain Jagjit Singh (supra) with regard to the principles that should govern the grant of bail in the case of a non-bailable offence under the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code 1898 equally applied to the grant of bail under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code 1974 and that the legal position was not different under the new Code.